In this Division III case we are reminded that police officers may not use false pretenses to stop a driver for a sniff test (obtain an odor of alcohol). Typically an officers observation of odor leads the way to field tests, eventually a breath test at the station, and then a DUI charge.
The Court held that the trial court’s finding that the officer’s secondary reason for the stop does not support its conclusion that the stop was nonpretextual and constitutional. The officer claimed he was following Mr. Chacon to investigate a possible DUI and stopped him principally for that reason but used an illegally altered tail pipe as an excuse to initiate the stop. This violated the Washington Constitution as outlined by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Ladson (1999). The Court reversed Mr. Chacon’s (Arreola) conviction and remanded the matter to the trial court to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
This is such a unique case that a lengthy quote from the opinion summarizing the facts is needed:
Officer Anthony Valdivia of the Mattawa Police Department was the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing. He testified that while on routine patrol on the evening of the arrest he responded to a citizen report of a possible drunk driver on a state highway in the southwest section of Grant County. Upon arriving in the area of the reported sighting, he began following Mr. Chacon’s car, which matched the description provided by the citizen report. He did not see any behavior suggesting that Mr. Chacon was under the influence of alcohol but could hear that the car was equipped with an after-market exhaust system, amplifying the noise of the engine in violation of RCW 46.37.390(3).[2] He followed the Chevy southbound for roughly a half mile, at which point Mr. Chacon made a legal left turn. After following Mr. Chacon eastbound for a short distance, Officer Valdivia activated his overhead lights. Mr. Chacon did not immediately pull over, but before long made a left turn into a yard and stopped. Upon approaching the car, Officer Valdivia recognized Mr. Chacon from prior encounters, noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and watery, saw open containers of beer in the car, and smelled alcohol. He arrested Mr. Chacon on several outstanding warrants after issuing citations for the modified muffler, DUI, and driving with a suspended license.
Central to the analysis in this case is the debate over an officers ability to stop and investigate driving related activities, which is distinguished from stopping a driver to investigate non-driving related activities such as drug trafficking. Importantly, the Court found that the infraction stop was secondary to the investigation of the DUI.
Arreola Rule – Pretext rule from State v. Ladson precluded officer from stopping DUI suspect for muffler violation.
State v. Gilberto Chacon Arreola, Court of Appeals of Washington Division III, No. 29164-2-III, September 15, 2011.